How to humanely euthanise Blackbirds?

Perhaps the population would have increased even more had the culling not occurred.

If everyone who has a Blackbird's nest on their property destroyed it surely that would go some distance to managing this pest's numbers. But as some folk have pointed out prevention of habitat destruction might have more benefits for native wildlife than destroying Blackbird nests. Then again to promote this stance might well be used as an excuse by others to do absolutely nothing. 

In answer to your question, Nichos, the most humane way of dealing with Blackbirds (or Starlings, as these birds seem to be due to their nesting behavior) is to be vigilant during breeding season & destroy their nests &/or eggs before the young hatch. Also ensure their are no holes for Starlings to use in the first place. 

However, since you have these exotic young birds already chirping, I suspect all you can do is remove them & their nest & adopt the short & sharp approach. It may sound cruel but I always ask people to consider whether it's much, much crueler to bring about the extinction of a species by allowing populations of exotics to build up. 

gee zosterops I hope that is not the same with cats....or cain toads.  Just wondering if the natural enemy numbers of those Quail and Blackbirds are low due to habitate loss. But the adaption to possible new found abundance of breeding opportunities for the quail and blackbirds keeps numbers high.    

Nichos, when you consider how long, messy, and suffering nature deals with death, anything you do that is quick will be fine. Towel, impliment, bin may be all you need.  Us humans get all this and that over death.  It scares us, and we nancy pance around what it should or shouldn't be.  If you are convinced it is an aggressive import, than do it quick and do it for the locals who can't talk. Then feel satisfied you have made a little difference towards a better future. Even better go plant a tree to celibrate.   

Hmmm I can see his point, and I like his fences and wood pile ideas. But the cats will just sit off the fringe of the wood pile and wait.  I watched cats do the same thing under a water trough out west.  Bird lands, bends down to drink, bird dies.  

I think like a leak in a bucket, if it keeps going and is fatser then the refill rate, it eventually drains.  Culling cats, or any introduced animal needs the pressure applied and keeping it on. Numbers may seem to spike, but as ol mate said, it's just other cats or what ever the target species comming in for a look at the new territory.  The water level is slowly going down even though it may appear it isn't.   

I feel we owe to this country.  We do it on Islands and see the success of recovery rates of local indangered species, we just have to suck it up and start on the mainland.  

The arguements for culling are always more emotional than scientific. People see an invader and want to take action, and killing things always seems like strong action. Unfortunately things are always more complicated than we like, and culling humans isn't acceptable. I have blackbirds at my place, they are a bit annoying because they are so noisy, but I haven't noticed them causing any problems for native birds. They feed on the ground but I have plenty of ground feeding birds like wrens, choughs and cuckoos around, blackbirds don't seem to bother them. I don't think that killing things solves problems, with the exception of blackberry bushes, and even then I love blackberry jam so I tolerate a certain level of blackberry infestation.

maybe just do nothing then. Scientist change the "best know practice" all the time so what in this decade is out the next. Evolution rolls on and it is what it is.  No one really knows....  

Yes woko I think that you have nailed it again, the impossible corner.  And one that is so dissapointing, and frustrating.  Our breif 227 years of occupation in perhaps what was the worlds last great island, and we took its innocence like a dirty pedafile. Now we have a half functioning enity plagued with issues.     

And so we come full circle to habitat protection & restoration accompanied by feral eradication, breeding & reintroduction programmes. Expensive? I hardly think so given the money spent on war, gambling, legal drugs, subsidies to the dirty energy industry etc. 

Starlet, if you wish to question the legitimacy of the killing/culling process, you're best off doing it in the manner zosterops is; by bringing in evidence and reasoned thought. It holds a lot more sway than trying to take a moral highground and writing some odd religious analogy. Anyway, apart from the effectiveness of culling, zosterops also touched on another important point of discussion. Although the Blackbird is an exotic species, that doesn't mean they are necessarily harmful to the natural ecosystem, just as being a native species doesn't mean they are necessarily beneficial to the natural ecosystem (Pittosporum Undulatum, crown of thorn starfish etc.).

As zosterops noted, studies in NZ have indicated mutualistic benefits between the Blackbird and native plants, as it tends to be a rather indiscriminatory frugivore (fruit eater, new word for me) which involves it in spreading of seeds of native plants. This is particularly important in areas where the natural biotic seed distribution channels have broken down due to the decline or extinction of native avifauna. I think the current paper I am reading sums it up quite nicely. "Although the European blackbirds will never compensate for loss of endemic New Zealand birds, they may help to make the best of a bad situation."

Although no similar study has been performed in Australia in relation to how it interacts with our native flora, it is quite probable it is offering the same service to us. It's implication in the spread of Pittosporum Undulatum (native plant turned weed), would suggest to me at least that to some extent it does perform the same service, in the sense that it can assist the propagation of native species that employ that method of reproduction. Obviously, this means they can also act to disperse exotic species, but studies have shown native birds can also partake in that process if the opportunity is presented.

Another publishication in Australian Field Ornithology journal remarked: "This note describes two cases of a native bird species feeding commensally with the introduced Common Blackbird Turdus merula while the latter was feeding on the ground: juvenile Masked Lapwings Vanellus miles, and a Brown Thornbill Acanthiza pusilla. In both cases the native species followed, and appeared to benefit from, the Blackbird's foraging activities." Perhaps it also assists other native species in foraging as well, although this paper is rather anecdotal and more an observation rather than a fully conducted study.

What was most surprising, to me at least, was the lack of information pertaining to the Blackbird as a threat to other avifauna, although it is important to not confuse a lack of evidence with evidence indicating it poses no substantial threat. As zosterops said "well even if the blackbirds (and other exotic birds) were somehow eliminated from suburban areas it would not mean the return of natives as the habitat would be unsuited, though this is presupposed on the notion that blackbirds competitively exclude native species, a theory i've yet to see any peer-reviewed data on, only supposition." In fact from what I've read, I'd be inclined to agree. The Blackbird tends to most strongly associate with urban/suburban areas, and its threats are mainly implicated as being competing with the Bassian and Grey-Shrike Thrush whom would most likely not be successful in urban areas due to their preferred habitat and behaviour, regardless of Blackbird presence.

At this point, I think the question stands, what do we really gain from attempting to control their numbers? Particularly in urban areas, I don't see much evidence supporting it from a conservational point of view, but perhaps rather the opposite. Such a species may actually be beneficial to our native ecosystem in lieu of lost native avifauna, and removing it from areas where it has been present and integrated for ~150 years might prove detrimential to other aspects of the ecosystem. At the end of the day though most of this is just conjecture. The truth is though that we need some solid data on how they impact native species before making such a definite call, especially regarding non-urbanised areas where they may have spread and are more likely to be competing with natives that would be more viable in their absence.

Anyway, eventually I feel this all plays into a concept expressed by a paper published in 2011 called "Don't judge species on their origins". Once again I'm going to quote the paper I'm reading because they can phrase things far more eloquently then I can, but it expresses the basic idea far better than I could. "Davis et al. (2011) recently called for a reappraisal of the commonly held belief that introduced species are universally harmful. They argue that non-native species are now permanent features of most 'natural' ecosystems worldwide so they should be judged based on their functioning within the ecosystems to which they have been introduced. In this case, blackbirds appear to consume a similar range of fruits to native New Zealand birds and may provide effective seed dispersal services in their absence."

In fact, just to illustrate this point, if you want to target your conservation funding most effectively it seems it would be best directed at controlling the native noisy miner rather than the well-known exotic pest of the Common Myna, let alone the Common Blackbird whose effects remain to a large extent unquanitified. Anyway just some food for thought, apologies for the long post.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-14/native-noisy-miners-cause-more-damage-than-introduced-species/5964328

NZ Paper: Burns, K. C. (2012). Are introduced birds unimportant mutualists? A case study of frugivory in European blackbirds (Turdus merula). New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 171-176.

Davis, M. A., Chew, M. K., Hobbs, R. J., Lugo, A. E., Ewel, J. J., Vermeij, G. J., ... & Thompson, K. (2011). Don't judge species on their origins.Nature, 474(7350), 153-154.

EDIT Just some extra factors and future research directions the NZ paper notes;

"Future work might also benefit from investigating whether blackbirds compete with native birds for food resources."

"Seeds ingested by blackbirds could have lower germination rates than through native bird species, or blackbirds may disperse seeds over smaller spatial scales, reducing probabilities of establishment. Future work on the relative roles introduced birds play in avian seed dispersal mutualisms would benefit from investigating how blackbirds influence later stages of plant recruitment."

I don't quite follow how science is devoid of emotion. I would argue most people involved in studies and programs regarding conservation issues are quite passionate about the topic and invested in the conservation of species and life. Scientific studies involving animals are also subject to strict ethical protocols to ensure they are conducted in an appropriate manner, if you're referring to that. However, even if you think scientific studies and their suggestions are devoid of emotion, science does not decide policies but rather informs it. If suggestions or actions are considered inappropriate, they shouldn't make it through into policy.

I'm not a forum moderator.

EDIT: I think I have misinterpreted your post. I think what you're getting at is that a post shouldn't be removed on the grounds of being non-scientific so as to discard a religious/moral/ethical standpoint from being expressed, and I agree with that. As I said it wasn't me that removed the post. However that being said, I think the post was rather poorly worded, and was probably removed because it seemed inflammatory and provocative in nature, rather than because it expressed a different viewpoint.

Just to clarify, when I said the post was poorly worded I was referring to Starlet's post. Your wording wasn't at fault but rather my understanding.

haven't seen the post in question but i don't care how iconoclastic one's ideological propensities are, free thought should remain lest we devolve into an orwellian dystopia. 

though is it possible the post was deleted at the users behest?